Idoit40fans wrote:if you meet someone, invite them back to your apartment and they say yes, I think a reasonable person could/would consider that consent if not an invitation to try to "escalate" the situation.

Going back to the apartment is NOT "consent". Unless she says "yes" to specific actions, just her walking into your apartment is not consent to do whatever you want. The yes, was to go to the apartment and continue your interactions. What you must then get is the next "yes" for the actions you want to "escalate" at the apartment. Usually, I'm sure, things escalate when you bring a girl back to your apartment. However, every girl is different in what she wants to do and how far she wants to go. It may be reasonable to think things will escalate, but don't ever say that is consent.

Idoit40fans wrote:if you meet someone, invite them back to your apartment and they say yes, I think a reasonable person could/would consider that consent if not an invitation to try to "escalate" the situation.

Going back to the apartment is NOT "consent". Unless she says "yes" to specific actions, just her walking into your apartment is not consent to do whatever you want. The yes, was to go to the apartment and continue your interactions. What you must then get is the next "yes" for the actions you want to "escalate" at the apartment. Usually, I'm sure, things escalate when you bring a girl back to your apartment. However, every girl is different in what she wants to do and how far she wants to go. It may be reasonable to think things will escalate, but don't ever say that is consent.

so is consent an opt in or opt out type of thing? is it where you keep the funk going until one says no or does one need to request permission for entry?

Idoit40fans wrote:if you meet someone, invite them back to your apartment and they say yes, I think a reasonable person could/would consider that consent if not an invitation to try to "escalate" the situation.

Going back to the apartment is NOT "consent". Unless she says "yes" to specific actions, just her walking into your apartment is not consent to do whatever you want. The yes, was to go to the apartment and continue your interactions. What you must then get is the next "yes" for the actions you want to "escalate" at the apartment. Usually, I'm sure, things escalate when you bring a girl back to your apartment. However, every girl is different in what she wants to do and how far she wants to go. It may be reasonable to think things will escalate, but don't ever say that is consent.

so is consent an opt in or opt out type of thing? is it where you keep the funk going until one says no or does one need to request permission for entry?

Request permission. Some of the problems with rape is people say, well she didn't say "no" so obviously it was okay. In the case of some women, they feel pressured, scared, or confused and are just unable to say no, or maybe they were too drunk. To avoid issues, it is always just better to ask "is this okay?" before moving on. Never assume you have permission, always ask. This way, you know the woman (or man) is comfortable with what you are doing.

Idoit40fans wrote:if you meet someone, invite them back to your apartment and they say yes, I think a reasonable person could/would consider that consent if not an invitation to try to "escalate" the situation.

Sorry, idoit...do not agree. Just because she said yes to visit doesn't give any man the right to assume she means yes to sex. And, although you my "try to escalate" the situation, if at any time she protests, it needs to end right there, immediately. It's called respect and honor.

Idoit40fans wrote:if you meet someone, invite them back to your apartment and they say yes, I think a reasonable person could/would consider that consent if not an invitation to try to "escalate" the situation.

Sorry, idoit...do not agree. Just because she said yes to visit doesn't give any man the right to assume she means yes to sex. And, although you my "try to escalate" the situation, if at any time she protests, it needs to end right there, immediately. It's called respect and honor.

I know this is an old post, but...

Wait...what? First of all, i'm not talking about a "visit". It should be obvious that I was talking about people going out, meeting each other, then going back to someone's place. Of course no means no, but if they come back to your place and then don't stop you, they definitely consented. Where did you get the idea that anyone here thought that any kind of consent was a blanket yes for anything?

Idoit40fans wrote:Wait...what? First of all, i'm not talking about a "visit". It should be obvious that I was talking about people going out, meeting each other, then going back to someone's place. Of course no means no, but if they come back to your place and then don't stop you, they definitely consented.

If thats the case then everyone should have a contract set up at their home because no guy is going to sit there and say "is this ok? Is this ok? Is this ok?" And if they did the girl would be out of there in about 7 seconds. It would probably be best for everyone if we just went to arranged marriages and consumatig the marriage was just a duty that you had to perform afterwards.

People can wiggle around it howeverthey want, but societal norms dictate that if you go back to someone's place some night youre consenting to them making an advance, and if you are going along with what happens, there is no way that you are not consenting.

Are you strictly speaking like two random people at a bar one night meet and go home with each other that night? Or like a first date scenario where they go out and the girl goes back to the guys house to hang out after the nights over? I'd say example one you could see some form of consent, but not necessarily example two.

Defintely 1. I dont know exactly how 2 happens though, i think if the girl is coming back after the first date she is likely someone that will just give you verbal consent. pop. First dates have ended with me going home alone in my experience.

You know what, nevermind. I don't think I'll be able to put what I'm thinking properly into words. I can see where people misinterpret ID40 and can also see he's point. I now see "consent to make an advance" and if you go home with someone I can see where they're open for that advance. And that doesn't have to mean all the way, could be trying to put your arm around the person or kiss them. Where that wouldn't exactly be okay if you're just having a conversation with someone you meet at a bar or party or something

I dont even understand the other side of the argument. I cant see where people are coming from. There is no black and white form of consent. Its not like 1 yes equals "do what you will, my safeword is blueberry pancakes".

Idoit40fans wrote:I dont even understand the other side of the argument. I cant see where people are coming from. There is no black and white form of consent. Its not like 1 yes equals "do what you will, my safeword is blueberry pancakes".

A Steubenville High School teacher and coach indicted for failing to report child abuse in the aftermath of two rape investigations involving high school students will perform community service in exchange for dismissal of the charge.

Seth Fluharty, a wrestling coach and special education teacher, struck the deal Friday with state prosecutors in Ohio.

Mr. Fluharty had been accused of failing to report suspected child abuse, a misdemeanor, in regard to the August 2012 rape of a West Virginia girl by two Steubenville High School football players.

Ma'lik Richmond, one of the boys convicted of rape in the case is back on the field and the roster of Steubenville Big Red. While he was released in January, some (in Steubenville) obviously are saying he's served his time and should be allowed to continue on with his life. While that may be true, even tho the majority think the sentence was way too light, he did serve it time, no matter how worthy that sentence was) but the problem is should he really be allowed back on that team? Under Reno Soccoccia no less? He's still classified as a sex offender too, which bring up the issue of having a tier II sex offender playing on a high school football team.

Ma'lik Richmond, one of the boys convicted of rape in the case is back on the field and the roster of Steubenville Big Red. While he was released in January, some (in Steubenville) obviously are saying he's served his time and should be allowed to continue on with his life. While that may be true, even tho the majority think the sentence was way too light, he did serve it time, no matter how worthy that sentence was) but the problem is should he really be allowed back on that team? Under Reno Soccoccia no less? He's still classified as a sex offender too, which bring up the issue of having a tier II sex offender playing on a high school football team.

I'm curious what the school would do for other criminal offenses. Would they let him back on if he physically assaulted someone? If he was caught selling drugs? I'm wonder if other criminal offenses would have him off the team. If the answer is yes, then the school continues to show a complete disregard to the victim.